One topic we need to touch on here is the charismatic doctrine
of the baptism with the Spirit. At Dayspring, this was taught to
be, "a subsequent experience to salvation." And,
"The initial evidence of this experience is speaking in
other tongues as the Spirit gives ability" (Dayspring, p.
1).

Biblically, there are several problems here. The Bible teaches
that a person receives the Spirit the moment he is converted.
Moreover, if someone has not received the Spirit, he is not a
Christian (see Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13 and John 3:6). Charismatics
try to circumvent these points by making a distinction between
having, receiving, being filled and being baptized with the
Spirit. But the Bible uses the terms interchangeably (Acts 2;4;
10:47; 11:16).

Second, nowhere does Scripture teach that tongues is the
evidence of being baptized with the Spirit. In fact, Paul makes
it clear that not all believers speak in tongues (1Cor 12:30).
Also, if as mentioned previously, people of various non-Christian
faiths speak in tongues, how can it be a sign of Holy Spirit
baptism?

This topic is important. If a believer who doesn't speak in
tongues accepts this teaching, he's going to start seeking an
experience that has no Scriptural basis. This can lead to demonic
influence or psychological delusion. Remember the story I quoted
from Butler about what happened to the man who was seeking the
"baptism"?

The point is, a person should be seeking God, not an
experience. In following the Lord, spiritual experiences may be
encountered, but this shouldn't be the focus. Also, the
experience(s) need to be judged by Scripture to test their
reality.

Positive
Thinking/ Confession

Another verse I heard continually taken out of context at
Dayspring was Proverbs 23:7, "For as he thinks in his heart,
so is he."

This verse leads to the next parallel between the two
movements: positive thinking/ confession. "Healing comes as
a direct result of perceiving ourselves as whole." This
statement could easily have been made by someone at my old church
in reference to Proverbs 23:7. The problem is, However, that this
quote comes from The Aquarian Conspiracy by New Ager
Marylin Ferguson (p. 150).

Also, in context, this verse from Proverbs is not teaching the
power of the mind. Proverbs 23:6-8 is a warning to not be
deceived by a greedy man who is appearing to be generous. He is
only trying to win you over so he can use you.

In any case, positive confession was one of the biggest
problems I had with Dayspring. It was usually used in reference
to healing. If someone was sick, he was told to tell people he
was well. This was because there was supposedly power in the
words that would cause God to respond.

However, as Douglas Miller states, "God will not be
controlled. Any attempt to direct or manipulate God implies
rebellious idolatry" (cited by Gordon Lewis in Montgomery,
p. 355). This practice is also lying, which is something God
hates (see Prov. 6:17).

This idea stems from a wrong concept of God. As Butler asks,
"Is the god whom we can manipulate in this way the God of
the Bible? (Butler, p. 113). I say no.

At the healing session I mentioned earlier, the evangelist
prayed after he called the people forward, "Lord, I demand
that you heal these people."

It was the events of this night that were the last straw in
causing me to leave the church. I couldn't believe what I was
seeing and hearing. If God must jump when we speak, then we must
be at least equal to Him. A charismatic would never say this, but
it's the logical conclusion from these practices.

This attitude comes dangerously close to the New Age concept
of God. In the mini-series, Out on a Limb, Shirley
MacLaine stood on the beach of the Pacific Ocean chanting "I
am God, I am God, I am God" (Ankerberg, p. 10). Butler
implores, "Let us never lose a sense of awe as we come
before a holy God" (p. 67). This warning needs to be heeded
by adherents to both movements.

Attitude
Toward Sin

Another indication of their faulty viewpoint of God in both
movements is their attitude toward sin. Repentance is a part of
Dayspring's statement of faith in reference to salvation. (p. 3).
However, in practice, this was rarely preached, or when it was it
was done in a light-hearted manner. The emphasis in evangelism
was always the experience one could have by believing in Christ.

This emphasis was usually tied in with what Jesus could do for
you: be healed, be made happy, etc. Which relates back to the
positive thinking/confession beliefs. Problem is, God never
promised that by becoming a Christian a person would have a
carefree, healthy, happy life. In fact, the apostle's experiences
were the exact opposite (see 1Cor 4:8-14).

This parallels the New Age "gospel." Sin is looked
on as being an ignorance of one's divinity. (Ankerberg, p. 17).
The reason to follow "the path" is usually given in
terms of all the good things it will bring.

I was very disturbed when I read William James' book, The
Varieties of Religious Experiences. It was disturbing that
James, an atheist, could see that this health and wealth
"gospel" was not what Christianity had traditionally
taught.

In the chapter, "The Religion of Healthy
Mindedness", James shows how the concept had its roots in
the mind-cure cults of the turn of the century. On page 94, he
states, "Although the disciples of the mind-cure often use
Christian terminology, one sees from such quotations how widely
their notion of the fall of man diverges from that of ordinary
Christianity."

The point is, the concept originated not in Christian circles
but in the occult. Christians simply added Christian terms and
started teaching it in the church. "When it spoke of the
'Christ-life' within, it meant precisely what the mind-cures
meant by the spiritual nature, although they might have called it
the 'Divine Energy' or the 'Infinite Life" (Frank, p.
145).

The above is not to say that anything without Christian roots
is necessarily wrong. However, in this case, it is difficult to
divorce the practice from the faulty world-view underlying it.

Faulty
Church History

Both movements are severely lacking a knowledge of church
history is. Both ascribe to some kind of restoration belief. New
Agers teach, "The early church taught reincarnation
until the sixth century when it was suppressed at a church
council. (Grudel, p. 8).

An in-depth refutation of this claim would require an article
in itself. Suffice it to say here, that even a cursory reading of
the writings of the Church Fathers would show that they believe
in resurrection, not reincarnation (see The Nature of Resurrection).

Similarly, charismatics believe the gifts were suppressed by
the early Church. They further claim the gifts did not re-appear
till the Azuzu Street "Revivals" of the early
1900s.

However, there was no suppression of the gifts. They just
gradually lost importance after apostolic times. Also, there have
been isolated groups throughout Church history that have
manifested the charismata. However, from the Montanists of
the second century to the Mormons of the nineteenth century, many
have been heretical or, at least, at the "fringe" of
the Christian faith (Butler, pp. 23-68).

The purpose of the sign gifts was to authenticate the message
of the apostles (Heb. 2:4; 2Cor 12:12). As such, it is not
surprising they lost importance when the apostles died. Whether
the gifts are for today is not the issue, the real problem is the
excessive importance placed on them by charismatics.

The above points caused me to start questioning the validity
of the charismata in my former church. These facts were
also instrumental in leading C.S. Butler and Neil Babcox to
re-examine their beliefs. Their stories are recorded in their
books listed in the bibliography.

Eschatology

Both movements are very interested in eschatology (end-times
prophecy). As the name implies, the New Agers think they are
going to usher in a "New Age" for society. Charismatics
and all Christians are also looking for a new age. However, our
new age will be brought about by the Second Coming of Christ. It
will not come about by attaining to "Omega" -- the
unification of conscience and culture, as Douglas Groothius
describes the New Age belief (Groothius, p. 118).

New Age goals are:1. A one-world
government.2. A one-world
economic system.3. A one-world
culture including a one-world religion.4. A god-like
world ruler who will help to implement these changes
(Ankerberg, p. 25)

This all sounds dangerously close to what some Christians
believe is described in Revelation 13.

Now where do the charismatics fit into this scenario? First of
all, charismatic groups throughout the ages have attempted to
predict the exact time of the parousia. This practice
occurs despite Jesus' clear statements not to do so (Matt. 24:37;
Acts 1:7).

This kind of attempted prediction is what exposed the
Montanist prophets to be false. Their prediction of the Second
coming did not come to pass (D. J. Wright, in Elwell, p. 732).
When prophecies like these fail it can lead to great
disappointment (See Is
the End Near? - Part One).

Add these practices to the charismatics emphasis on
miracles and it could lead disappointed church members right into
the anti-Christs arms. The Bible warns the anti-Christ is
coming with, "counterfeit miracles, sign and wonders."
(2Thes 2:9). I began to feel that charismatics could be the first
ones deceived.

Transcending
Traditional Belief Boundaries

Both movements are already transcending traditional belief
boundaries. As Schaeffer states, "Instead of accepting a
person on the basis of what he believes which has always been the
Christian way, it's 'do you have these external
manifestations?'" (Schaeffer, p. 391)

This statement could apply to New Agers as well. Schaeffer
goes on to say, "An example of the down-playing of content
is that some are now lamenting the Reformation" (p. 391).

Butler reiterates the same idea, "There are charismatics
who have gone so far as to say that they believe that the
reformation was a dreadful mistake" (p. 103). This attitude
is because, "The charismatic renewal has now become widely
established in the Roman Catholic Church" (Butler. p. 105).

The pope would love to see all the "separated
brethren" back under his authority. Pope John XIII stated,
"We cherish the hope of your return..." (Knolls, p.
74).

The problem is, this unity would be on the basis of
experience, not a reconciliation of beliefs. It could only be
realized by an extreme overemphasis on experience and
anti-intellectualism of these movements.

Francis Schaeffer sums up the problem very well:
We must, of course, be careful here, because we are not
saying that there shouldn't be any experience or emotion.
There is and should be. But neither experience nor emotion is
the basis for our faith. The basis is that certain things are
true. the whole man, including the intellect, is to act upon
the fact that certain things are true. That, of course, will
lead to an experience (Schaeffer; p. 391).

Evangelical
Response

What should be the evangelical response to these movements?
This question is especially important since many in these
movements have some sort of traditional Christian background. As
Ankerberg states, "The church needs to have a higher degree
of commitment to Christ as Lord in every area of life, to
studying and living the Bible's teachings, and to learning
apologetics" (p. 22). We need to give a stronger emphasis to
teaching theology, church history, and apologetics in our
churches.

On the other hand, we should recognize the experiential side
to Christianity. Nothing is worse than a dead intellectualism. We
need to acknowledge the importance of the Holy Spirit's work in
our prayers, worship and evangelism.

However, learning or offering an experience must never become
the focus of our activities. The focus needs to stay on God and
people's need for a Savior (Rom 3:23).

Lastly, both of these movements grow out of a faulty viewpoint
of God. Shirley MacLaine could never shout "I am God"
and the charismatic would never try to manipulate God via
positive confession if they truly understood the holiness and
majesty of God.

R. C. Sproul, in his book The Holiness of God, states,
"I was a Unitarian of sorts, a Unitarian of the second
person of the trinity. I knew who Jesus was, but the Father was
shrouded in mystery." (p 14).

There is too much of the "You've got a friend in
Jesus" mentality going around. We must never forget that
God, "...is the blessed, and only Sovereign, the King of
kings and Lord of lords; who alone has immortality, dwelling in
unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be
honor and everlasting power. Amen" (1Tim 6:15-16).